Confirmed - Rangers get d8 HD in 3.5e.

[Mercule]

What else do you dislike about the 3.5e ranger, since the d8 hit die is apparently minor change (see my above post regarding the "plumber's crack" statement)?

Well, without pulling up the list of rumored changes:

1) The HD. (included for completeness) This is especially bad considering the Ranger is still partially defined by a fighting style -- potentially how good he is at melee.

2) TWF is _still_ a potential _class_ ability. I don't mind the concept of a woodsman/skirmisher using TWF, but it has nothing to do with the class. Rangers get feats every three levels like everyone else. If a Ranger PC wants TWF, let them use their normal feats.

3) The continued use of "virtual feats". Either give 'em the feat or don't. Conditional feats are just bad design, IMHO.

4) "Combat Paths" are another bad mechanic. I'm not at all keen about a choice made at 2nd level _directly_ impacting choices at later levels. Prereqs are fine, but a swappable slot at 6th (or whatever) level shouldn't be arbitrarily limited based on a choice at 2nd level. Sure, most people who pick Point Blank at 2nd are going to continue with archery choices as they gain levels, but they shouldn't be limited. It violates the "options not restrictions" mantra unnecessarily. Bonus feats would be a much better mechanic.

5) The fact that the Ranger is still defined by his fighting style (the above was "paths are a bad mechanic" this is "paths are bad flavor"). In adding the "paths", the Ranger is still required to be a pseudo-weapon specialist. That meets some of the archetypes tagged to Ranger, but what about the "ultimate scout" or "ultimate survivor" archetypes. A bonus feat progression that included Alertness, Inproved Initiative, Great Fortitude, etc. would make those archetypes possible with the Ranger, but the 3.5 Ranger is no better at filling those than the Rogue.

6) Spells are too important to the Ranger. Yup, I'm in the "mundane" Ranger camp. I didn't mind the 1E Ranger because the spells seemed more like "little tricks" that anyone bent on survival would potentially learn. I didn't really see them as being core to the class, but 1E really didn't scale much to the levels at which Ranger received spells. In 3E, the Ranger is pretty dependant on spells as a balancing factor, and they are critical to the functioning of the class. They should only get about half the spells they do and shouldn't get them until later. Better yet, a Ranger who wants Druid spells should use the really nice multiclass rules in 3E to pick up a few Druid tricks. This point is really an issue with 3E, though and my only beef with 3.5 is that it maintains the spells.

 

[MadBlue]

I personally like it. Too many times have I seen people who play Rangers want to be or act like the tank in the party.

Well, even with d10 HD, you're not going to be able to avoid - or dish out - damage like a well armored Fighter, nor are you going to be able to take a pounding and reduce damage like a Barbarian. Rangers aren't Tanks in 3e.

The d8 change allows for more creative rangering than "I'm gonna whack it with a sword".

Of course, if the DM is always throwing challenges that can only be overcome by whacking it with a sword, that's the kind of Ranger you get. Define what you mean by "creative Rangering", and why you can't do it just as well with d10 HD.

When the class was created I'm sure the concept was "Wilderness Rouges".

I'd wager you weren't even born when the class was first created, if that's what you think the concept was.

And this stat change will force people to do it.

And this is exactly why the HD shouldn't be changed.

MadBlue

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

I'd wager you weren't even born when the class was first created, if that's what you think the concept was.
MadBlue

Well I am as the first time I saw the ranger was in SR. and I think the ranger was always designed around being a ranger, not being a tank, That is the problem with the ranger being forced into a certain vision. I think the ranger should be a PrC but if it is to be a core class I think limiting it's hit dice to help lend it flavour. so that it encourages people to play a ranger as a ranger and not some fighter who uses two weapons. it a step in the right direction.
ken

 

[Henry]

I'm still dying to know why the Barbarian class doesn't have these kinds of discussions. You don't hear too many people suggesting that barbarians should have tracking ability at first level, or that barbarians should have a disdain for magic, or shouldn't have rage at 1st level...

So far, the revised Ranger sounds good, but I'll reserve judgement. All mentioned to me sounds like improvement over the 3E Ranger, and that is all I'm going for.

One thought: The Revised DMG should have included an "alternate ranger" that contains no spellcasting, some sort of terrain advantage ability, and just a load of bonus feats. At the least, it would give people a choice... But then it probably would have played havoc with the RPGA if they had.

 

[Henry]

One thing I notice is that we seem to forget that these message boards are truly the minority among D&D players. Most people get along with the Core books, play the game as is, and have more fun that we do complaining so much.

I have learned this to be the case (except for the the part that they have more fun - complaining and debate has its own fun attached, because you love the material enough to care ). For every 1 person you find who has a complaint about a class, a feat, or a rule, you find 100 people who either like it, or who are ambivalent. My own group has only two people who go into large-scale rules debates and revisions (me and one other person who is also a DM).

Originally posted by (Psi)SeveredHead
Finally, if WotC responded more often to it's fans, I don't think they would get many complaints. There's little point of putting compliments on the boards if you don't think it will do any good.

I have spent 7 years on Usenet, and 3 years on this community's forums - and I have to disagree with this statement. It's a corollary to the statement, "you can't please all the people all the time." It doesn't matter how the Ranger class is altered, you will have criticisms about its design. Imagine how many people (such as myself) would come out of the woodwork if WotC dropped ALL spellcasting from the Ranger! Or imagine if 2WF no longer became a staple in the class after having been a part of it for the past 15 years! I would wager serious money that you would have roughly as many people satisfied as you subsequently DISsatisfied. The class (like those of the Monk and the Bard, which were seriously rewritten for 3E) has a small vocal core of protesters who are upset at the treatment the WotC gave it.

 

[Gator]

I'd wager you weren't even born when the class was first created, if that's what you think the concept was.

You're right. I missed it by a little and was born in 77. So, why don't you enlighten us as to what the concept was then?

And by "creative rangering" I mean: Set traps, ambush, hit and run, hell..even lead them into an area full of hostile animals ie: I had a ranger who led a small group of orcs and hobgoblins into a cave with mating owlbears.

 

[Umbran]

...I think the ranger was always designed around being a ranger, not being a tank...

'

Which is why in 1e dexterity was not a prime attribute for the class while strength was, why it was allowed to wear heavy armors at no penalty, why they got sizable combat bonuses against big critters, and why they didn't have abilty to hide in shadows or move silently.

There's not much at all in the 1e ranger design to say it wasn't as much of a tank as the fighter and paladin were.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

'

Which is why in 1e dexterity was not a prime attribute for the class while strength was, why it was allowed to wear heavy armors at no penalty, why they got sizable combat bonuses against big critters, and why they didn't have abilty to hide in shadows or move silently.

There's not much at all in the 1e ranger design to say it wasn't as much of a tank as the fighter and paladin were.

Dex wasn;t a prerequisite because the ranger had too many as it was, and back in the day rolling 3d6 it was easier to be a paladin then a ranger.
Of course they could hide or move silently or all sorts of other things. just liek a fighter was assumed to be able to ride a horse before non weapon proficiencies came out so was a ranger assumed to be competent. while a ranger may not of been able to detect traps like a thief, he could set snares and trap animals track and find natural food and water, when the ranger first came out, just like all the classes the character was assumed to know how to do what he needed to do, it has only been with subsequent edition, that rangers suddenly lost many of the abilities that where assumed into the class under first edition. remember in the DMg where it said if a character wanted to do some thing the Dm looked at the relevant stat and decided what the the character had to roll to succeed? all the character classes where more knowledgeable and competent in 1st edition. didn't; need a feat to create scrolls or potions every wizard could do it if he wanted too. Didn't need a skill to ride or fight from horse back most warriors where assumed to be able to do it. If you and your group looked at the ranger as a super tank fine but in my experiences, until 2nd edition and th e2 weapon fighter was born, the ranger was looked upon as a scout, tracker and explorer, where as the druid wanted to protect and understand nature, the ranger was seen as the mountain man who understood nature, so as he could protect humanity form th worst of it YMMV, but in my opinion it is not youth, but the fact the ranger is forced down a certain path, that is the problem. in first edition the ranger was wide open you could play him as an archer or as a fighter, or spend your time collection a bunch of animal followers, but in 2nd edition and following up in 3rd edition too much of th ranger freedom has been restricted, because of the force two weapon warrior. lowering the hit dice so he becomes a warrior second is a great start, I am waiting to see this combat path thing, I personal think a bonus feat program similar to the fighter but made up of a different feat set would be better but YMMV
Ken

 

[Ranger REG]

Even the gang at WotC acknowledges this. The only reason why they're not, of course, is that it would piss a lot of people off. There was even talk during the original playtest of offering both, but they thought they'd avoid trying to create some new confusion...

By this logic, you might as well make both Rangers and Paladins PrC, and let everyone start off as a fighter or barbarian.

Let someone else (a third-party publisher) create a Paladin prestige class.

 

[Umbran]

Dex wasn;t a prerequisite because the ranger had too many as it was

It isn't like the only choice would be to add another prerequisite. If they hadn't wanted him to be a tank, they'd have made a prerequisite in Dex, rather than in Str. He had a tank's prerequisites, a tank's weapon and armor choices, a tank's hit points. Ergo he was a tank.

and back in the day rolling 3d6 it was easier to be a paladin then a ranger.

Like there was really a time when it was flad 3d6? Go back and look at the 1e DMG character generation methods. They were designed to generate characters with at least two scores of 15 or higher. The 1e PHB claims that such was generally essential for character survival.

Of course they could hide or move silently or all sorts of other things. just liek a fighter was assumed to be able to ride a horse before non weapon proficiencies came out so was a ranger assumed to be competent.

I don't buy it. If the plan were to assume lots of powers that aren't explicitly mentioned, then the Thief would follow the same pattern. You'd assume he could do anything that someone who would steal stuff could do. But, oddly, they went through a lot of effort to come up with very detailed scores for all his shenanagins.